I know this title, and much of what I've previously written has suggested a lot from The City, ...but has it really?
I’m just interpreting information as it's been documented.
While forming what it was I wanted to illustrate in this post, there was still a question that has been a head-shaker for over a decade. It concerns the Lease Agreement between The City and the San Francisco Zoological Society.
I worked pretty long and mentally hard for a day to uncover and understand near exactly why Our Zoo has seemingly been starved of funding from The City. Turns out while it would have been the morally decent thing to do, to have increased the management fee every year with inflation, it seems the agreement was not that simple. So, bear with me as I drag you down the rabbit hole a bit, I think it's necessary. After that, the true goal of this post is revealed, and I ask the question, Will The City Be Our Lions Savior?
Where the financial aspects of the Lease are concerned, particularly the ultra curious fact that there has essentially been no change to the Management Fee the Zoo receives from The City, in thirty-three years, I have used Chatgpt to dig into resources I might not have found, and also in this case make some mathematical calculations.
A couple months ago, I asked Chatgpt to approximate what the current Management Fee would have been if there had been consistent Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increases. It reported $9.44 million. I asked it for the yearly percentage. Then thought to ask it to breakdown the dollar amount by year. I was shocked when it gave me the amount of an estimated $80 million tally of what the increase amounts would have been since 1993.
The question I realized while writing this, that I hadn't before, was formed out of a term used the other day in a chat, that reflected a document that would have come into play in reference to the COLA increases, at the time of the Lease signing. I can't find my note, but it basically states the parameters of the increases.
Considering a nagging point in all of this has been, Why hasn't there been any significant increases? As well as, what party would have been responsible for initiating that conversation? So, as I started this post I wondered if COLA even existed in 1993, and maybe it didn't and that's where the issue lies. So I asked, Was there a specific year that San Francisco started Cost Of Living increases?
That question needed defining of the situation. That definition prompted further digging, which revealed that there was a 1993 negotiation document that contained a fee adjustment provision...
"The City would provide the Society $4 million per year for the first five years. Then after the first five years, in any subsequent renewal, the City's annual payment would be “re-negotiated and indexed based on cost of living or Civil Service salary standardization, whichever is greater”, subject to approval by the Recreation and Park Commission and Board of Supervisors".
So, without going into extreme detail because dissecting the Lease is not the purpose of this post, the synopsis is, there was seemingly one increase to $4.12 mil, an amount that may or may not have reflected a COLA amount. That amount lasted many years, until it reverted back to $4 mil. Why, is unverified. Also unverified is, Why that amount never changed again.
I bring this all up to clarify my words from a couple previous posts.
My post from September 20th ends with this paragraph...
"So, had there been Care, Oversight, and Cost Of Living (COLA) increases to the management fee, those extra millions could have greatly helped these three species to each have appropriate homes at Our Zoo, and we wouldn't be losing Our Chimpanzees and Lions now."
While I believe all that to be true, it has now been clarified to the point that the actuality of the Zoo having had "extra millions", may not have come to fruition unless the Lease stated there would be an automatic COLA increase yearly, which was my initial interpretation. I logically would not have thought there would be such intricate contract language regarding something that seemed straightforward to me and that would frankly require approval from RecPark and BOS. So, those extra millions would still be a legitimate factor in a perfect scenario, which this is not.
In an earlier post I wrote,...
"If Zoo leadership manages to keep it together til the Loan is paid off, the City should put forth a bond for minimum $80 Mil, to make-up for it, so the Zoo can move forward on the long list of upgrading.
If The City had paid closer attention to Our Zoo, and the group they allowed to manage it, coupled with Cost of Living increases, it would certainly not be in the position it is today.
While on the money factor, let's note, the blame for no Lease amendments over time, does solely lay on the Zoo Board. No alleged attempts has allowed the City to get away with letting the Zoo fall into despair."
While I stand by my assessment of lack of oversight on the part of The City, after now learning of the fee increase guidelines, and that one curious years long miniscule increase, and then the subsequent reduction of it, I have no idea how to accurately read what efforts to increase the fee the Society made. The situation is not as simple as it seems it should have been.
That all said, do I think The City should do something in good faith to correct the contractual outline that seemingly made it difficult for there to be an adequate annual fee increase to keep up with rising costs? Absolutely! Should it be reflective of that technically hypothetical $80 mil? Or should it just be as simple as funding a new Lion enclosure?
Moving past all that, let's get into what The City can do for Our Zoo now.
In the determination of the Loan to the Zoo from The City, Supervisor Myrna Melgar sought statistics for three scenarios that could present in the future. The costs projected in Scenarios 2&3 are by my estimation, greater than half of what I'm suggesting, and over three times as much as in Scenario 1.
SF Standard April 7, 2026
The numbers presented here are far more costly than funding some projects that would invest in the future of Our Zoo. As shown above, The City has already had to contemplate enormously expensive alternatives. If The City is going to run the figures for these scenarios regarding the Zoo's future, Why shouldn't one of those scenarios be investing in the Zoo's actual future and the Animals that already live there?
Our Zoo is currently facing the loss of two anchor species. Our Lions and Chimpanzees were among the first species of Animal Residents to Our Zoo. Shouldn't The City consider making a meaningful investment in the place it owns? An investment in Our Zoo's anchor species, is an investment in Our Zoo's future.
Considering the information above, in my opinion, The City as owner of the Zoo, and as shown in each Scenario, particularly Scenario 1, is in a difficult position themselves. It is seemingly in their best interest to invest in the Zoo. Their Zoo.
How does that investment look to me? It looks like three things.
1. Fund the construction of a New Enclosure for Our Lions. They are in immediate need, and probably the lesser cost of these two.
2. Fund the raze of Triple Grotto site and new build of the front facing portion (enclosure and new night quarters) for Our Chimpanzees. Also in need, but they are secure where they currently are.
3. Renovate an existing enclosure for Our Chimpanzee boys, while construction on the Triple Grotto site is completed. To be used for a future Primate afterwards.
Obviously if only the Need in first place happens, I would be very happy. That said, doing all three would make me extremely happy, and show that The City is willing to not only invest in Our Zoo, but in the Animals that currently live here. It says a lot about the Care for Keeping Our Zoo's Current Residents, home at Our Zoo.
While I am most certainly flat-out suggesting The City fund a New Lion Enclosure, I am also proposing a City Bond, which I mentioned in a previous post. This would obviously not be the now hypothetical thirty-three year void of $80 mil in back COLA, but drastically lower, and possibly less than half that amount.
If passed, it would include if deemed, a payback of The City's front money for a new Lion enclosure build, which is immediately needed, Rebuild on Triple Grotto site for Chimpanzees, and the temporary housing renovation for the Chimp boys. As stated above, this amount of both gift investment and bond, could look by my guess to be approximately one third of Scenario 1, and approximately half of Scenarios 2&3.
The Zoo is obviously not in the financial position to build Our Lions a new enclosure, or even contemplate where funds for the larger endeavor that will one day in the near future be the rebuild on the Triple Grotto site. The later that will ensure Chimpanzees stay in Our Zoo.
The Zoo/Board should have been fundraising the last year for Our Lions, but has seemingly done nothing to keep them here. Any large scale fundraising is seemingly only concentrated on funding their own Panda want, which is apparently The City's want as well. The City could fund projects for Lions and Chimpanzees at what would be a large fraction of the projected alternative scenario costs, and/or initiate a special election for a bond that would specifically go to these two projects that would ensure Lions and Chimpanzees Stay At Our Zoo.
Pandas aren't the only way forward, keeping two species Our Zoo shouldn't lose is part of the path forward. If the Society can make it happen, then bring Pandas, but don't make their arrival be the end of the story for the Animals who are already here, and their species that have been here since Our Zoo opened over ninety-seven years ago. Take Care At Home.
I believe it's essential to preserve that these two anchor species should have a future at Our Zoo, and not in the undetermined distant future, but right now, and with the Animals we already know and love.
The City investing in the future of Our Zoo by funding new homes for Our Lions and Chimpanzees, is not only the morally right thing to do, it shows Care.
Despite popular belief, or wishful thinking, regarding how much Our Zoo going public wants Pandas, it is seemingly plausible to say, from the comments I have read on various social media forums, the overwhelming abundance of love is not only for taking care of current residents, but Keeping Our Lions over acquiring Pandas.
None of this is meant to hate on Pandas. I think the majority of the population loves Pandas, and would love to see them, including me, but not at this time, and not at the expense of Our Lions. I have long repeated my motto for Our Zoo, "Take Care At Home". They need to take care of Our beloved Lions and Chimpanzees. Keeping them here is not just in their best interest, it's in the best interest of Our Zoo and City. Rehoming these two species outside Our Zoo, is not beneficial to Our Zoo's future without them.
It's necessary to note that I understand that the loan agreement has it's own stipulations and milestones that need to be met for oversight purposes, and I agree that is something that should happen. In fact I think moving forward the Board of Supervisors should be the oversight for Our Zoo, since the RecPark has seemingly never taken that responsibility seriously, to the detriment of Our Zoo.
That said, that Loan and it's agreement, is a completely different situation. That money has no stipulation for how it's spent, so Zoo management needs to use it in a way that ensures responsible payback.
An investment by The City would be designated funds that invest directly in specific projects. Like the Loan, if necessary this could also be monitored directly by City oversight.
When news broke in 2024 of the Lion House being used for Pandas, a New Enclosure for Lions was originally included. Someone needs to follow through on that plan.
The Zoological Society has failed to make good on that promise to Our Lions.
Will The City be Our Lions Savior?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Blog Owner Note: I hope this reads ok. It took days of staring at a good portion of paragraphs, trying to organize how to fit everything. Thank you to all who made it to the end!
> Previous Post:
This Years Fundraiser Should Have Been Called LionFest
https://iamnotananteater.blogspot.com/2026/09/this-years-fundraiser-should-have-been.html
> Related Posts: Use Search tool in upper left corner, keyword "Lions" , "Chimpanzees" , "Chimps" , "Pandas"
> Comments: Note that Anonymous Comments are accepted. I moderate all comments before publishing. If you are using this form for a non-publish correspondence, please note "Personal" on it. Thank you for your participation and/or feedback.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Blogger's Statement
"Personal Opinions and Facts presented publicly are Not against the law or any rules. ... Censorship and Retaliation Actions in an attempt at Suppression are frowned upon by Healthy Societies."
For Full Statement see this post:
https://iamnotananteater.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-zoo-status.html
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I used to use (search) labels, but too often forget. I started noting "Hot Topic" in title, but fell lax on that. Now I'm just going to add labels, keywords, etc., here at the bottom with hashtags. Does it help in searches, who knows.
#SanFrancisco , #SanFranciscoZoo , #Zoos #SanFranciscoZoologicalSociety , #SanFranciscoZooCEODirectorCassandraCostello , #FormerSanFranciscoZooDirectorTanyaPeterson , #SanFranciscoRecreationAndParksDept , #FormerSanFranciscoMayorLondonBreed , #SanFranciscoMayorDanielLurie , #AssociationOfZoosAndAquariums , #AZA , #SpeciesSurvivalPlan , #SSP , #Animals , #Wildlife , #Nature , #AnimalWelfare , #AnimalCruelty , #AndeanBear , #KomodoDragon , #Chimpanzees , #PatasMonkey , #Fossa , #Orangutans , #Barriers , #PerimeterFence , #Pandas , #Bison , #Gorillas , #Lemurs , #Lions
